First of all, the disadvantage of Pyeongtaek port is lack of competitiveness which attracts shipping companies (or shipper) due to its insufficient handling capability.
Second, Pyeongtaek is unattractive due to the inadequate port facilities; it owns two berths for general cargo and 1 berth for container cargo only. Thus, Pyeongtaek port should solve the super and infra-structure problems as soon as possible, because both of them are the basis of in generating handling cargo volumes. If Pyeongtaek port has sufficient super and infra-structure, shipping company will consider Pyeongtaek port as the first place to call.
On the other hand, Pyeongtaek port has great potential conditions to become the leading feeder port of South Korea. Since Pyeongtaek port shares the similar hinterland such as KyoungKi-Do, ChoongChung-Do and Seoul with Incheon port.
From the time and cost point of view, Pyeongtaek port is nearer and cheaper than Busan port to reach the hinterland. Before many shippers from Metropolitan area chose Busan port for trading with China, Japan and Southeast Asia, now it is possible for shippers to change from Busan to Pyeongtaek port. Although Pyeongtaek port has less potential to be a hub and Mega port, it can be operated as the main feeder port instead of Incheon, Pyeongtaek port has similar hinterland, time and cost effective inland transport and the potential industrial zone.
Table 27 displays about SWOT analysis of Pyeongtaek port in comparison with Incheon port.
Table 27. SWOT analysis of Pyeongtaek port
SWOT Factors
Strength
- Wide hinterlands (Seoul, KyoungKi-Do and ChoongChung-Do) - It has a plan of building about Posung Industrial Zone - Unloading and Navigation cost are cheaper than Incheon port
Weakness
- Variety of route service is insufficient (route density) - Frequency of call of port is low
- Market share in container cargo is less/ handling volumes is low - Number of container ship is 1/6 of Incheon port
Opportunity
- Cargoes are possible to transfer from Incheon port to Pyeongtaek port after getting the investment from shipping company
- New built industrial zone as a reliable hinterland - Inland transportation cost is cheaper than Busan port
- New built large scale logistics distribution zone provide the advanced service for shipping company
- The possibility for existing shipping company to move out from Busan port to Pyeongtaek port is high.
- It can reserve LCL (Less than Container Load) through the development of distribution and container terminal
- The hinterlands is similar with Incheon port, Pyeongtaek is more competitive - The road transport cost to some hinterland is cheaper than Incheon port Threat - Incheon port offer the volume incentive program to the shipping company
- Incheon port has a plan to build the New-Songdo Outer port
The main purpose of Pyeongtaek port is to attract investment from shipping companies, because it is very possible for shipping companies to move from Busan to Pyeongtaek.
If the investment arrives at Pyeongtaek port, shipping companies will tend to berth their own ships at Pyeongtaek to ensure the profit return. Once the shipping company chooses Pyeongtaek for a port of call, its M&A (Mergers and Acquisitions) will be followed.
Pyeongtaek port has to extend the berths and facilities to attract big vessels and feeder
ships due to the insufficiency in infrastructure and handling capability, which can make to lose both the cargo from global shipping company and transshipment to the feeder shipping companies. Thus, Pyeongtaek port offers the best service to global carriers and the volume incentive programs to transshipment cargo. At this stage, Pyeongtaek port has to make partnership with other ports. If feeder shipping company choose Pyeongtaek for their call and partner port, Pyeongtaek port will provide the incentive conditions to the feeder shipping companies. Besides, Pyeongtaek port should apply IT system to provide the reliable and real-time service.
References
1. Han Chul-Hwan (2003), A Study on the Effectiveness of Hub Port Development Strategy, Journal of Korean Navigation and Port Research, Vol.27, No.2, pp.
171~178
2. Kim Tae-il, Park Moon-Jin (2007), Hong Kong port’s crisis and Competitiveness consolidation strategy, Korea Maritime Istitute
3. Ross Robinson (1998), Asian hub/feeder nets: the dynamics of restructuring, Maritime Policy & Management, Vol.25, Issue 1, pp.21-40
4. Hui-huang TAI, Cherng-chwan HWANG (2005), Analysis of Hub port choice for container trunk line in East Asia, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.6, pp. 907-919
5. THEO E. NOTTEBOOM (2004), Container Shipping and Ports: An Overview, Review of Network Economics, Vol.3, Issue 2, pp.86-106
6. A study of Shanghai port and North China port’s development has an effect on South Korea and countermeasure (2004), Korea Container Terminal Authority 7. A northeast a feeder network consolidation plan (2006), Korea Maritime Institute 8. Cullinane, Khanna (2000), Economies of Scale in Large Containership: Optimal
Size and Geographical, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol.8, pp.181-195
9. Baird, AJ. (2001), A new economic evaluation of the hubport versus multiport strategy. Proceedings of the IAME 2001 Conference, Hong Kong. pp. 138–166.
10. Wijnolst, Scholtens & Waals(1999), Malacca-Max; The Ultimate Container Carrier, Delft University Press
11. Kin Tea Won (2004), Optimal Containership Size by Way of Total Shipping Cost Analysis